Journal List > Korean J Women Health Nurs > v.15(4) > 1037211

Cho, Kim, Hur, Oh, and Kim: Mother's Prenatal Care and Delivery Services Satisfaction according to Mode of Delivery

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to provide fundamental information about childbirth and antenatal care for pregnancy women and to find differences in mother's antenatal care and delivery service satisfaction between vaginal delivery and cesarean section.

Methods

This study was conducted in 4 residential areas and a study sample of 184 postpartum mothers who agreed to collect data. Data was collected from September 1 to October 20 2007 and a structured questionnaire were recruited by the survey. The data was analyzed by t-test and chi-squire test using SPSS/WIN 12.0.

Results

There was a significant difference in delivery place between vaginal delivery and cesarean delivery. Only 10.7% of vaginal delivery group delivered in general hospitals, however 24.5% of the cesarean section group delivered in general hospitals. Early antenatal care also showed statistical difference in mode of delivery. 43.5% of vaginal delivery mothers visited hospitals for the detection of pregnancy but 28.3% of cesarean section mothers did that. Vaginal delivery mothers more satisfied with her own delivery method and suggested a vaginal delivery to others.

Conclusion

These results suggest that cesarean section mother's sensitivity of early antenatal care was less than vaginal delivery mother. Satisfaction related to delivery care services were higher in the vaginal delivery group.

REFERENCES

1. Chang S.B, Park S.M, Chung C.W. Effect of Taegyo-focused prenatal education on maternal-fetal attachment and self-efficacy related to childbirth. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2004; 34(8):1409–1415.
crossref
2. Childbirth Connection. Listening to Mothers II: Report of the Second National U. S. Survey of Women's Childbearing Experiences. 2006.
3. Cho D.S. In: A study on the taekyo behavior of women who had given birth and the health professionals perception of Taekyo. Seoul: Yonsei University; 1987. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
4. Cho S.Y., Koh H.J. A comparison of primiparas' perception of delivery experience and identity as the mother according to delivery methods. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 1999; 5(1):5–17.
5. Emmett C.L., Shaw A.R., Montgomery A.A., Murphy D.J.; DiAMOND Study Group. Women's experience of decision making about mode of delivery after a previous caesarean section: the role of health professionals and information about health risks. BJOG. 2006; 113(12):1438–1445.
crossref
6. Fabiån H.M., Rådestad I, Waldenström U. Characteristics of Swedish women who do not attend childbirth and parenthood education classes during pregnancy. Midwifery. 2004; 20(3):226–235.
crossref
7. Gibbins J, Thomson A.M.. Women's expectations and experiences of childbirth. Midwifery. 2001; 17:302–313.
crossref
8. Giulia C., Francesco F., Carlo A.P.. Are cesarean deliveries more likely for poorly educated parents? A brief report from Italy. Birth. 2008; 35(3):241–244.
9. Han J.Y. Study of the application of a teratogen-risk information service. The annual report of KFDA, 11. 2008. from http://www.nifds.go.kr.
10. Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service. 2007. From http://www.hira.or.kr.
11. Jeffery B.G., Barbara D., Randall S.S.. Socioeconomic differences in rates of cesarean section. N Engl J Med. 1989; 321(4):233–239.
crossref
12. Jeon H.S., Seo H.G.. Abortion in Korea since 1945. Korean J Med Hist. 2003; 12(2):129–143.
13. Kim K.W., Lee K.H.. Woman's experience of risk situation on the high-risk pregency. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 1998; 4(1):121–133.
14. Kim S.K., Cho A.J., Kim Y.K., Do S.R., Lee K.W. In: 2006 The survey on the national fertility, family health & welfare in Korea. Seoul: Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs; 2006.
15. Lee J.A., Park I.S., Moon Y.S., Lee N.H.. Influencing factors on family stress, family meaning and family adaptation in families with high risk neonates. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2007; 37(4):431–441.
crossref
16. Nilsson C, Lundgren I. Women's lived experience of fear of childbirth. Midwifery. 2009; 25:e1–e9.
crossref
17. Pascal G, Beatrice B. Trends in risk factors for caesarean sections in france between 1981 and 1995: Lessons for reducing the rates in the future. BJOG. 2001; 108(1):48–55.
18. Statistics Korea. 2007. From http://www.kostat.go.kr.
19. Tschudin S, Alder J, Hendriksen S, Bitzer J, Popp K.A, Zanetti R, Hosli I, Holzgreve W, Geissbuhler V. Previous birth experience and birth anxiety: Predictors of caesarean section on demand? J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2009; 18:1–6.
crossref

Table 1.
Differences in sociodemographic characteristics between the two groups (N=184)
Characteristics Categories Total (n=184)
VD (n=131)
CS (n=53)
t or x2 (p)
n (%) or M±SD n (%) or M±SD n (%) or M±SD
Age (year) 31.0±4.1 30.1±3.4 31.3±4.9 2.47 (.56)
Residential area Kangwon 34 (18.5) 20 (15.3) 14 (26.4) 5.03 (.17)
Seoul · Gyeonggi 48 (26.1) 32 (24.4) 16 (30.2)
Daejeon · Chungnam 55 (29.9) 42 (32.1) 13 (24.5)
Honam 47 (25.5) 37 (28.2) 10 (18.9)
Monthly income (10,000 won) <300 34 (18.5) 17 (13.0) 17 (32.1) 9.14 (.00)
≥300 150 (81.5) 114 (87.0) 36 (67.9)
Education High school 40 (21.7) 27 (20.6) 13 (24.5) 0.43 (.81)
College or university 124 (67.4) 89 (67.9) 35 (66.0)
Post graduate 20 (10.9) 15 (11.5) 5 (9.4)

VD=vaginal delivery; CS=cesarean section.

Table 2.
Differences in obstetric and delivery facility characteristics between the two groups (N=184)
Variables Total (n=184)
VD (n=131)
CS (n=53)
t or x2 (p)
n (%) or M±SD n (%) or M±SD n (%) or M±SD
Parity 0.00 (.98)
 Primi 94 (51.1) 67 (51.2) 27 (50.9)
 Multi 90 (48.9) 64 (48.8) 26 (49.1)
Baby sex 0.91 (.22)
 Male 101 (54.9) 69 (52.7) 32 (60.4)
 Female 83 (45.1) 62 (47.3) 21 (39.6)
Body Wt. of baby (㎏) 3.2±0.4 3.2±0.4 3.2±0.4 0.21 (.83)
Wt. gain during pregnancy (㎏) 13.2±4.2 13.1±4.2 13.3±4.4 -0.21 (.84)
Delivery facility 5.83 (.05)
 General hospital 27 (14.7) 14 (10.7) 13 (24.5)
 Hospital 139 (75.5) 104 (79.4) 35 (66.1)
 Private clinic 18 (9.8) 13 (9.9) 5 (9.4)
Length of hospitalization (day) 4.6±2.5 3.6±2.1 6.9±2.0 -9.44 (.00)
Medical cost for delivery (10,000 won) 62.7±47.0 44.7±30.7 108.3±50.5 -9.46 (.00)
Length of hospitalization (day) 4.6±2.5 3.6±2.1 6.9±2.0 -9.44 (.00)
Medical cost for delivery (10,000 won) 62.7±47.0 44.7±30.7 108.3±50.5 -9.46 (.00)

VD=vaginal delivery; CS=cesarean section.

Table 3.
Differences in preconception and early antenatal care behaviors between the two groups (N=184)
Variables Total (n=184)
VD (n=131)
CS (n=53)
t or x2 (p)
n (%) or M±SD n (%) or M±SD n (%) or M±SD
Preconception care at clinic 0.17 (.40)
Yes 55 (29.9) 38 (29.0) 17 (32.08)
No 129 (70.1) 93 (71.0) 36 (67.92)
Preconception self care 0.99 (.41)
Yes 18 (9.8) 11 (8.4) 7 (13.2)
No 166 (90.2) 120 (91.6) 46 (86.8)
Planned pregnancy 0.75 (.39)
Yes 88 (47.8) 60 (45.8) 28 (52.8)
No 96 (52.3) 71 (54.2) 25 (47.2)
Prenancy wareness behavior
 Self test Yes 157 (85.3) 114 (87.0) 43 (81.1) 1.05 (.36)
No 27 (14.7) 17 (13.0) 10 (18.9)
 Clinic visit Yes 72 (39.1) 57 (43.5) 15 (28.3) 3.67 (.04)
No 112 (60.9) 74 (54.2) 38 (71.7)
Time at diagnosis of pregnancy (week) 4.9±1.9 4.7±1.7 5.2±2.1 2.83 (.17)

VD=vaginal delivery; CS=cesarean section.

Table 4.
Characteristics of pregnancy womens' antenatal care facility (N=184)
Antenatal care contents Total (n=184)
VD (n=131)
CS (n=53)
t or x2 (p)
n (%) or M±SD n (%) or M±SD n (%) or M±SD
Childbirth education class 0.84 (.24)
 Attendance 43 (23.4) 33 (25.19) 10 (18.9)
 Did not attend 141 (76.6) 98 (74.81) 43 (81.1)
No. of facility visited for antenatal care 0.06 (.97)
 One 108 (58.7) 77 (58.8) 31 (58.5)
 Two 59 (32.1) 41 (31.3) 18 (33.9)
 More than three 10 (5.4) 7 (5.3) 3 (5.7)
 Missing 7 (3.8) 6 (4.6) 1 (1.9)
Facility identify for antenatal care and delivery 0.12 (.43)
 Same 142 (77.2) 102 (77.9) 40 (75.5)
 Different 42 (22.8) 29 (22.1) 13 (24.5)
Time to antenatal care facility (min) 24.6±27.0 25.6±30.8 22.2±22.8 0.70 (.49)
Time to delivery facility (min) 28.7±30.2 26.2±29.8 29.1±31.5 -0.57 (.57)
Childbirth information sources 3.23 (.52)
 Books 56 (30.4) 40 (30.5) 16 (30.2)
 Internet 46 (25.0) 32 (24.4) 14 (26.4)
 Friends & relatives 40 (21.7) 26 (19.9) 14 (26.4)
 Doctors & Nurses 25 (13.6) 18 (13.7) 7 (13.2)
 Previous delivery experiences 17 (9.2) 15 (11.5) 2 (3.8)

VD=vaginal delivery; CS=cesarean section.

Table 5.
Facility selection criteria for antenatal care and delivery (N=184)
Considerations Total (n=184)
VD (n=131)
CS (n=53)
n (%) n (%) n (%)
Good quality of medical services 67 (36.4) 46 (35.1) 21 (39.6)
Convenience (visiting/time) 42 (22.8) 31 (23.7) 11 (20.8)
Familiarity with previous visits 42 (22.8) 28 (21.4) 14 (26.4)
Recommended by resource persons 24 (13.0) 18 (13.7) 6 (11.3)
Availability of female doctor 9 (4.9) 8 (6.1) 1 (1.9)

VD=vaginal delivery; CS=cesarean section.

Table 6.
Differences in delivery services satisfaction between the two groups (N=184)
Contents Total (n=184)
VD (n=131)
CS (n=53)
t (p)
n (%) or M±SD n (%) or M±SD n (%) or M±SD
Satisfaction with the delivery method 3.93±1.03 4.26±0.82 3.13±1.03 7.77 (.00)
Wish to have the same method for future delivery 3.76±1.12 4.16±0.81 2.75±1.16 9.26 (.00)
Recommendation of the delivery method to others 3.57±1.14 4.05±0.80 2.38±0.97 11.78 (.00)
Satisfaction with physicians 3.90±0.90 3.91±0.89 3.86±0.93 0.30 (.76)
Satisfaction with general medical service 3.73±0.85 3.72±0.85 3.74±0.85 -0.09 (.93)
Satisfaction with maternity service 2.62±0.90 2.53±0.88 2.85±0.92 -2.22 (.03)

VD=vaginal delivery; CS=cesarean section.

TOOLS
Similar articles